Paris Attack

oh right i forgot that universal rule :rolleyes: anyway crime stats are a red herring there is no causal link to freedom of speech

so can we safely agree that freedom of speech is understood and accepted differently across the globe and not appropriate to apply one standard to another?
since both have pro's and con's
 
so can we safely agree that freedom of speech is understood and accepted differently across the globe and not appropriate to apply one standard to another?

Nope it has a standard definition already and as such there is no freedom of speech in Iran or Malaysia. Its also a standard to be strived for and it a mark of the relative freeness of a society. Freeness can be compared and it is appropriate to expect said countries to improve.
 
by law uk.. in reality uk

malaysia in my view is in line with iran on that one..

france however

they protect freedom of speech while violating freedom of religion in practice..
Can We Trust France's 'Freedom' When Hate Cartoons Are OK and Hijabs Are Not?

that to in a public space.. on the bloody street.. you wear a hijab you get fined. thats religious persecution

No..get your facts correct, any overt display of religious paraphenalia or clothing in a public place in France is illegal. It is a secular country and that country has chosen to apply secular law in a way it seems fit. To be honest, I think it works on some levels and helps with integration. France has a problem with ghettoisation and this can help alleviate that.
 
No..get your facts correct, any overt display of religious paraphenalia or clothing in a public place in France is illegal. It is a secular country and that country has chosen to apply secular law in a way it seems fit. To be honest, I think it works on some levels and helps with integration. France has a problem with ghettoisation and this can help alleviate that.
so nuns get a ticket for dressing as such? pretty sure no such fines have been issued

too tired for this argument again... time for zzzzzz
 
Last edited:
The law in France is not just applied to one religion is what I was saying. It applies to jews and orthodox greeks the same.
 
No..get your facts correct, any overt display of religious paraphenalia or clothing in a public place in France is illegal. It is a secular country and that country has chosen to apply secular law in a way it seems fit. To be honest, I think it works on some levels and helps with integration. France has a problem with ghettoisation and this can help alleviate that.

Actually the law on overt displays of religious paraphernalia only applies to public schools except universities. Not in public places. in 2010 they banned the niqab or burqa (full face) in public but not the head scarf.

As a secularist i don't think the banning religious symbols on any type is good secular law. If all face coverings in public were banned the argument could be bad but its specifically banning a cultural form of clothing but would not bad the minority of jews who require the same thing although they are a tiny minority . As long as a someone is wearing it by choice and not being coerced into it im okay with it. Although im sure there is allot of women who sadly are forced to wear it

To correct myself the law does apply to all face covering. However its still a bad law IMO as one of the hilarious side affects is that it actually unintentionally banned masscots for sports teams
 
Last edited:
Okay, my turn. Which of those countries (Malaysia/Iran, and UK/France) have a lower crime rate? and why?
hints its not france or uk

Please tell me then, why are there are so many Muslims living in non-Islamic states, even the most "evil" like France and USA?

Because living in an Islamic state is to be oppressed. Many leave if given the chance. Period.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me then, why are there are so many Muslims living in non-Islamic states, even the most "evil" like France and USA?

Because living in an Islamic state is to be oppressed. Many leave if given the chance. Period.

a good deal are refuges and economic migrants.
 
Ah, refugees from what? Religious persecution perhaps?

How many people flee from "evil" western countries and enter Islamic countries as refugees?

Western countries (secular states) may not be perfect but they're one heck of a lot better to live in than Islamic countries, and most importantly, western countries have in place a process (democratic elections) to fix what's not working. Islamic countries are stuck with the manipulated interpretations of centuries old religious texts/rules, and where death awaits anyone suggesting otherwise.

There is no possible further argument on this, is there?
 
Last edited:
War's mostly, political and religious persecution falls into it

Mainly amongst themselves. Shia and Sunni tribalism

just like, but even more violent than, Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland some decades ago.

See how stupid religion is?
 
Here is Shah's idea of free speech:

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle...-insulting-islam/story-fnh81ifq-1227185842850

The father-of-three’s crime may seem innocent enough to most, but according to Saudi authorities Badawi, who set up a website for public debate, he insulted Islam.

The blogger, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for setting up the Saudi Arabian Liberals website, was publicly flogged last week after Friday prayers when he was lashed 50 times outside al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah.

And as for Shah's admiration of the pinnacle of Islamic society, here is an apt article from Malaysia:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/malaysian-man-rape-marries-victim_n_3321086.html

Riduan Masmud was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl last February. On Monday, his counsel Loretto Padua revealed to the court that Masmud is now married to the young girl he was accused of assaulting. As The Daily Express notes, Padua had previously told the court that Masmud was in the process of seeking a lawful marriage to the teen in Syariah Court -- a separate court system that has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Islamic law.

This is not a one off either... back when I lived in Indonesia I saw articles almost monthly from both Indonesian and Malaysian sources where girls were raped (sometimes by the police) and then forced to marry their rapist.

If that is the kind of justice system you strive for Shah, why did you (presumably) immigrate to Canada?
 
On another forum, links were provided to a couple of good articles in the Globe and Mail that are worth reading.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-is-between-islam-and-itself/article22375452/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...o-our-core-democratic-values/article22424207/

* * *

Regarding differences in various rights and freedoms, values, belief systems, etc between countries ... Certainly, there are differences. Certainly there are those in every situation who think their own system is better than the others - or not.

The problem is not necessarily that any one system is better or worse than any of the others. The problem is when any one group attempts to thrust its beliefs upon others who don't necessarily want it.

Granted, the Americans are most certainly guilty of meddling in the Middle East (and Vietnam, and elsewhere).

But ... People who came from the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, and came to Canada, or France, or the USA, or wherever, presumably in search of a better life or to escape whatever their previous country was doing to them, ought not to be trying to make Canada/France/USA/wherever into the country that they came from.

If they can't deal with freedom of speech and ALL of its consequences, they ought to either shut up and deal with it, or move back where they came from.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans."
 
Back
Top Bottom